State Personnel - Collective Bargaining - Nontenure Track Faculty
HB 106 expands collective bargaining rights for certain nontenure track faculty at Maryland public higher education institutions. The bill defines “nontenure track faculty” to include full-time, part-time, and adjunct employees at system institutions, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland whose primary duties are academic in nature, such as teaching, research, and department head roles. It excludes faculty at fully online institutions and positions funded entirely through research or service grants, contracts, or clinical revenues.
The bill also creates a separate bargaining unit for these employees and amends the State Personnel and Pensions Article so that nontenure track faculty are carved out from existing exclusions that otherwise apply to faculty, contingent employees, and certain out-of-state employees at public institutions of higher education. It further adds nontenure track faculty as a distinct category within the list of appropriate bargaining units for each system institution, Morgan State University, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and Baltimore City Community College. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
HB 106 would change Maryland’s public-sector labor law by expressly extending collective bargaining eligibility to a new class of higher education employees and by requiring a separate bargaining unit for nontenure track faculty. It amends the State Personnel and Pensions Article, particularly the provisions governing who is excluded from collective bargaining and how bargaining units are structured at public institutions of higher education. The practical effect is to give many non-tenure-track instructors and comparable academic staff a formal path to union representation and negotiations over wages, hours, and working conditions.
The available legislative history suggests the bill moved forward without recorded opposition in the materials provided. It received a favorable committee report with amendments and was adopted by the House, indicating general support for expanding bargaining rights for this group of faculty. The absence of recorded votes or transcript debate in the provided context limits the ability to identify detailed sentiment, but the bill’s progression suggests it was viewed positively by its sponsors and committee members.
The main policy issue is the scope of eligibility: the bill carefully defines which nontenure track faculty are covered and excludes faculty at fully online institutions and employees whose positions are fully funded by grants, contracts, or clinical revenues. Another point of potential contention is the creation of a separate bargaining unit, which may raise questions about labor organization structure, representation, and how these employees fit alongside existing bargaining categories for exempt, nonexempt, and sworn police employees. The bill also narrows prior exclusions for faculty at public higher education institutions, which could prompt administrative concerns about implementation and bargaining obligations.